Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nosara on November 07, 2005, 11:13:58 PM
-
I would like to see more tank battle areas in all the maps. It is hard at times to find a good GV battle. Some of the maps are set up well for tank battles whilst others are not.
Also any chance for a low slung Stug111 or maybe the Panther ?
-
Panther be a nice addition to the game, I think it could match the tiger. Didn't it have better gun than the tiger. I still like to see a, better not say it (been discussed many times and many are getting mad) but a tall green match stick.
-
Panther was one of the most common German tanks. Really it statistically is MORE deserving of a place in AH than the Tiger.
I would love to see a Panther in AH.
-
i would like the Stug IIIG with schurzen armor like that on the current Pz. IV.
(http://nosphotos.webalpha.org/jc/Asl/J74R/StugIIIG.jpg)
-
I believe you are correct when you say the Panther's 75MM gun was slightly superior to the Tiger's 88mm in terms of armor penetration. In terms of this game, however, I believe the game mechanics would make the two nearly identical in terms of hitting power and armor. The only difference would be speed on open ground with the Panther having a clear advantage. To keep the game balanced, then, the Panther would have to be perked HIGHER than the Tiger to account for the better speed.
I know from what I have heard elsewhere, this is going to cause a lot of gnashing of teeth, but I will back up the "high green matchstick" as a needed add. Despite the poor reputation of the Sherman, and the conversely over-hyped t-34/76, the two tanks were in reality very similar in terms of armor (from the front, at least) and hitting power. The t-34's reputation benefits from the fact that it faced early PzkwIV variants, PzkwIII's, and Czech 38(t)'s at its introduction. Against these tanks, the t-34 was clearly superior. In contrast, by the time the Sherman saw action in significant numbers, the Germans had already upgraded their tanks' hitting power in response to the T-34, causing the Sherman to receive its reputation of poor survivability. The same goes for the gun. The Russian 76mm gun was no better at killing tanks than the Sherman's snub 75. But again, Shermans fought mostly already up-armored opponents and not their weaker-armored predecessors.
In terms of Aces High, the Sherman could be set up with capabilities comparable to the t-34 with the following modifications:
The downside would be the lesser likelihood of a ricochet when hit from the sides or rear, and the obviously higher and easier-to-hit silloette.
The advantages would be the pintle .50cal on the Sherman, better rate of fire for the 75mm gun (roomier turret than the t-34), and better crew visability.
One more advantage vs. ALL other armor in the game would be the gyrostabilized gun. Yes, hard as it is to imagine, the gyrostabilized gun sights first saw use with the Shermans in WW2. In game terms, this would mean little to no sight bounce when moving or turning and no random movement of the gun off your last aiming point when the gun is fired. This better ability to fire on the move and/or "home in" on targets would help the Sherman stand up to its opponents.
Still think the Sherman would be too similar? Then how about the version equipped with the 105mm gun? It could be modeled so that it is better able than any of the other guns to take down hangers or town buildings to show its role as rolling artillery. For anti-tank duty, it could carry a very limited number (8-10) of HEAT rounds. These would be at least as deadly as the PzkwIV AP rounds.
Now I will sit back and wait for everyone who supposedly knows better to light me up.
-
The T-34's reputation benefits from the large number of T-34/85s built. The Russian 85mm gun isn't as good as the German 88mm or the 75mm on the Panther, but it is far better than the American 75mm or 76mm on the Shermans. If we'd gotten the T-34/85 it would be the most used tank in AH.
Several people, such as Pongo and myself, predicted what would happen if the T-34/76 were added, and our predictions were right on the money.
It isn't that theb T-34 is over hyped (much) so much as we have an uncompetitive T-34.
HTC said the T-34/85 would be added at the same time as the Panther V was added.
-
After we get those, we need something can match up with the T34, M8, and other light vehicals like the Sherman, Panzer PzKfw II, Matilda tank, PzKpfw III Ausf.E, or ChurchHill tank, Crusader III, or Grant MK1, or the M10 Tank Destroyer. I think these would be good for lighter tank vs lighter tank battles.
The Tiger, Panzer IV, Panther, T-34/85 would be the heavy to heavy tanks.
AH would not be fun with all heavy duty, better armored, better armed guns. I think we need to even it out, so that not 95% of people don't only choose the better tanks, over the suckier ones.
For example right now the lightest tanks we have are the M8 and T34. The Panzer and Tiger are the heavier better tanks in AH. I dont see much people taking the M8 and T34 into battle. Most likely they are ganna take the Panzer or the Tiger becuase they have a better gun and armor, and have a better chance of surviving in battle. Those two are the only tanks that will match up against each other right now in AH. If we had an even number of heavy tanks and lighter tanks, than more people would have more choices to choose from. Now you wouldn't have to worry about going up against just panzers and Tigers in your T34, now you got tanks like the Sherman, Grant, Panzer II/III, and other tanks like you, that you dont have to worry about and you have better a chance to win a fair battle.
If we just got some of the better tanks during the war, then the M8, and T34/76 would not be used at all. If we had maybe 4 heavy tanks, and 8 lighter tanks, than theres more of a chance with less heavier tanks on the field and more lighter tanks on the field.
I would like to see the Panther and T34/85 in AH, then I would like to see more lighter tanks.
-
Honestly, the problem with tanks and the ENY system is that unlike aircraft, some tanks are just immune to others due to the nature of heavy armor. Even a Ki-43-I-Ko with a top speed of 308mph and armed with two 7.7mm machine guns can kill an La-7 or Tempest V just by shooting it. There is no way that a Japanese tank armed with low velocity 37mm gun is going to destroy or disable a Tiger I.
Why?
Because the limited amount of armor on a fighter prevents it from being completely immune to even the smallest guns. Those 7.7mm bullets will still puch holes in almost any part of a Tempest.
In the tank's case that is not true as weight is not nearly so limiting an issue. If you are making a 45 ton armored fighting vehicle it is not terribly hard to make it the next best thing to completely immune to smaller and slower cannon rounds.
The effect this has is that there are some tanks that no matter the skill of the operator simply cannot kill the better tanks. In AH2 this can already be seen in the T-34 vs Tiger I. Because if you encounter a Tiger I you will be unable to hurt it, taking a T-34 means crippling yourself in a way that no fighter can be crippled in comparison to another. Because of that people will opt to take the free, but still has a fighting chance, tank in numbers that are exagerated compared to the fighters.
I.e. taking a Bf109G-6 up against Tempest Vs is rough indeed, but very much easier than taking a T-34 up against Tiger Is. The step back from the leading free unit (Spitfire Mk XVI or Panzer IV H respectively) to what could be considered middle of the pack performers has drastically different results on the probability of success.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It isn't that theb T-34 is over hyped (much) so much as we have an uncompetitive T-34.
Just a thought and just saying... I felt that the T34 that is modelled currently in AH was competitive enough though. Last night, I took a T34 and took out three panzers before my turret was taken out and survived the battle long enough to rtb. On the other hand, at point blank range, a Tiger couldn't be destroyed.
I guess the term competitive is in the context of the type of battle there is. Last night it was fit for it and made it enjoyable. Other times, probably not.
-
FDutchman,
Against the Panzer IV H it is competitive enough. The problem is when you face a Tiger, which happens all too frequently. Tigers are by no means rare in AH.
-
I want a StuG III or a SU-85 because turrets are for dweebs. They look so cool.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
FDutchman,
Against the Panzer IV H it is competitive enough. The problem is when you face a Tiger, which happens all too frequently. Tigers are by no means rare in AH.
then its clear what needs to be done... the Tiger's gotta go! :lol j/k
-
Originally posted by Karnak
FDutchman,
Against the Panzer IV H it is competitive enough. The problem is when you face a Tiger, which happens all too frequently. Tigers are by no means rare in AH.
In some ways, I think the frequency of Tigers is due to the lack of other perked vehicles. Adding a something like a T-34/85 or another heavy tank with a modest perk value would make Tigers more rare. Think of it like our bomber situation -- if you want to fly a perked bomber, you have one choice.
I have always found the T-34 to be a bit harder to kill than the PzkwIV in the game due to the propensity of ricochets off the sloped armor. So that is the give and take that goes on for the un-perked tanks.
I have "killed" a Tiger in my measly M-8 once. Actually, I managed to track him while driving circles around him as he tried to turn his turret to aim at me. He was later finished off by a 1000lb bomb that had no trouble hitting such a large, unmoving object. Got something like 11 perkies for it. :D A T-34/76 should therefore be able to track a Tiger, but due to it's very slow rate of fire I would almost prefer my M-8 in that matchup.
Purists will say this is a flying game after all, but having a few more choices or more specialization (I still like the 105mm Sherman idea) would add to the game IMHO.
Turretless vehicles would be a wonderful addition, especially since the Germans were relying on them so heavily in the latter years of the war. I would recommend a Hetzer for punch per square inch.
-
I'm curious: why do people keep calling the T34/85 a "heavy" tank? I thought "heavy" meant with respect to weight, not caliber of the main gun. The T34/85 was a medium tank: it has exacly the same chassis as the T34/76, only the turret and gun are different. Or am I wrong? Does "heavy" refer to the gun?
(BTW- an AH T34/76 can take out a Tiger 1, but only if the Tiger driver has gone to the bathroom or is otherwise indisposed, as it takes 4 to 5 shots at absolutely point blank range and 90 degrees penetration angle.)
-
Generally a "heavy" tank refers to its weight. In WW2 terms, the cutoff varies, but I think is usually around 40 tons. The T-34/85 was around 32 tons, making it a medium tank by those standards.
I re-read my post and I see how it looked like I referred to the t-34/85 as a "heavy", but this was bad grammer on my part and was not intentional. I meant, add a t-34/85, or another heavy tank besides the Tiger.
I have seen some articles where the armor on the T-34/76 is listed as 60mm while the armor on the T-34/85 is listed as 90mm, but these same articles only show a 2 ton weight increase. I think the 2 tons could be accounted for almost entirely by the larger gun, larger turret (3 man instead of the 2 man on the T-34/76) and heavier ammo loadout. I always thought the chassis was the same, so maybe the added thickness was just on the turret. Someone smarter than I could probably answer.
-
All this talk of different tanks has overshadowed what I think is the best part of the original post _ a call for all maps to have areas set up that are conducive to tank battles.
Head to tank town when it is up or the main island tank area and you'll see that lots of people love playing in GVs.
I second the request.
As for shermans _ they are overdue. The gyrostabalized cannon alone would assure the ronsen steady use. (I never knew they had such a thing in WWII.)
-
Originally posted by Baine
The gyrostabalized cannon alone would assure the ronsen steady use. (I never knew they had such a thing in WWII.)
It was not very effective is why you don't hear about it. It was nothing like the M1A2 Abrams system.
In practicality the Sherman had to stop to shoot with any accuracy just as all other WWII tanks did.
-
yea, if you watch the movie Band of Brothers, most of the tanks that fired their shots were either moving then slamed the brakes and then fired or where going 5mph shooting. Nothing like the M1A1 Abrams can do going full speed and manage an accurate shot.
-
While true that the system was nothing like what we have today (except for the .50 cal Browning, what is?), the description I have says the main problem was crew training. The system was introduced on the M3A1 Stuart and by 1943 was standard on most Sherman models sporting the 75mm gun. However, "many crews were not overly familiar with the mechanism and found its use complicated and time consuming. As a result, many tank commanders disconnected their stabilizers and did not fire on the move, perferring to stop before using the main armament."
If we assume a properly trained crew, the stabilizer could remain an option. After all, we don't assume green tank crews fleeing their vehicle when pummeled by machine guns (which often happened), thus a seasoned crew would be able to use the gyro system properly.
-
i know everyone says the sherman wouldnt be much good but what if there was option for it to have two drones similar to bombers.
The tanks follow the leader ever line abreast or in a v or trailing and all fire at 1 central point when the leader fires.this would make for some intresting battles.
-
I like the idea, but I dont know how it would work in AH. What happens when you have a tank to your side, wouldn't the tank next to fire on you at the direction you firing. I would like to see a sherman.
The problem here in AH is that were going to have to many tanks that are like the Tiger, or panther, or M26, with big guns and weavy armour. If we got more lighter tanks, like the churchill, Matilda, Grant, Italian tanks, japanes tanks, stuwart, Pnzr II/III, Crusader III, and the M10 tank Destroyer, then we could have tanks like the Sherman in AH, and the T34/76 could also have a chance at some victories. If we got more lighter tanks into aces high (what I mean by lighter is the less powerful guns or less armored tanks) then we wouldnt have to worry about the tiger. We could have tanks that have powerful enough guns to kill a tiger in maybe 3 shots, but it could also have thinner armour and be killed by a sherman. I think we need to get the Panther, then start on lighter tanks. To many tanks with thick armour and powerful guns will make the lighter tanks like the sherman, or churchill not wanted in AH. If we got more lighter tanks then less people would hope in a tiger and get something they like, or is fast, or has a good gun, but not good armour. So now you would have to worry about more tanks that have almost the same characteristics as you. I hope you all understand this.
-
Lets see a tiger take on a t-95.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:T-28-1.jpg
-
First: Sorry, Nosara, for the unintentional hijack of your thread. Your point of needing more "tank-towns" seems to be seconded (and thirded, and fourthed, etc) judging from the number of vehicle-junkies that play the game and keep posting on threads like this one.
It also speaks well of HTC to have put something on as almost an afterthought and to have it be actually better than 90% of what else is out there for armor-to-armor combat (at least that I have ever seen).
Regarding specific tank types, I go back to my original point about the Panther vs. Tiger. In pure AH Game Terms (if there is such a thing) there would not be much difference between the two. Unlike air combat where every 10mph or that 30mm variant vs the 20mm can and do make a big difference to a fight, I am not sure we need a VAST number of different vehicles. Seriously, a pzkwIII with a 37mm gun vs a Czech38(t) with an identical gun really wouldn't make a difference in game play (other than asthetics). I would be interested in adding vehicles that would bring something to the table that would make it unique vs. what we have now.
Lets consider the PzkwIV(H) as modeled to be the "baseline" tank in AH. It has a good gun, fair armor, good visability, and is unperked.
T-34/76 is faster, poorer gun but in a faster turret, poorer crew visability, but is slightly more survivable due to the sloped armor. Also unperked.
Osti is the same basic tank as the (H), but with an AA gun in the turret instead of a vehicle fighter. Also unperked.
M-8 is faster than all the above and offers a much smaller target, but the gun is far less powerful. Obviously the weakest of any vehicle yet mentioned, but still good enough to have a role.
M-16 is faster than the Osti with much faster rate of fire, but is definitely weaker in all other respects.
Now that this is our "base" of unperked vehicles, what do other models bring?
Tiger I - Obviously much up-armored and up-gunned vs the base (H). Only drawback is that it is a larger target and has a very slow turret. Perked for a reason.
Suggested Sherman. Armor basically same as (H), gun same as T-34/76 if you want a 75mm version. Possible advantage in game terms would be the .50cal pintle mount vs. (H) pea-shooter and possible gyrostabilizer. The more I think about it, this really may still be too similar to the (H) or 34 to warrant the modeling, so maybe the version with a 105mm is really the best way to get it introduced. Either way, it would be unperked.
Suggested StgIII or SU-85 or Hetzer, etc. Lack of turret makes it completely different from any of the other tanks regardless of which one is picked and modeled. Advantage would be a lower cross-section to fire against and slope of armor. IMHO, something that should be added. Whether it is perked or not would depend on whether it is an StgIII (unperked) or something like a Jeager-Tiger with the 128mm naval gun (very perked).
Suggested T-34/85. As with the T-34/76, already faster and better armored than the (H). Gun would out-perform the (H). Therefore I would call it a "perk" vehicle, but only modestly so.
Suggested Panther. In game terms, not much different from the Tiger I excepting for speed. Would be perked higher than Tiger for that reason.
Getting outside of the above mentioned I just don't know. What could be added that would really "add" to the game, i.e. be different enough in game terms without being dominated by the baseline (H)?
Churchill tank could be interesting. I think its armor was roughly that of the Tiger. Depending on the version, though, it would be hopelessly outgunned -- and quite slow.
M3 Lee was my personal favorite tank of WWII. But unless you are willing to "crew" it properly, not sure it would work well in AH game terms.
Be interested in hearing thoughts.
<>
-
i think a sherman would be cool :aok
-
The lee would be pretty cool. Maybe make it into a british tank, since the british used it in North Africa.
-
All this talk of different tanks has overshadowed what I think is the best part of the original post _ a call for all maps to have areas set up that are conducive to tank battles.
Head to tank town when it is up or the main island tank area and you'll see that lots of people love playing in GVs.
I second the request.
As for shermans _ they are overdue. The gyrostabalized cannon alone would assure the ronsen steady use. (I never knew they had such a thing in WWII.)
Actually, IMO it's not impossible to incorporate the tank battle part of the game, without having to 'seggregate' them in their own sanctuary somehwere in the map.
The problem is the current strat system of the map, how the system handles tanks spawning, for that matter. The spawn points are too long, reaching all the way upto 5 miles vicinity of enemy town.
What happens is, the entire process of the "ground advancement" part of tank battles is lost, since the spawn points handle the 'advance' part. What we get is GVs spawning right at the town. This becomes a problem both in offense and defense:
* In offense, the tanks are so close to enemy field that it is no match for their tank busters upping from field again and again.
* In defense, enemy tanks spawn so close to the town that the defenders rarely have enough drivers to up tanks of their own and meet the challenge. Besides, the VH is the first target to go down when enemy attack is inbound field.
* As a result, there is no tank battle. Its either tank steamrolling, or tank massacre.
What I propose is a special system for the GVs, so they need to make a true "advancement" to the enemy field, instead of just spawning right infront of a town.
Imagine that two hostile fields, Field1 and Field2, 30 miles apart, hostile, have an array of 5~6 spawn points lined up between them:
[Field1] --- --- --- --- --- --- [Field2]
In the beginning, tanks from both fields spawn at the middle point, . They have to duke it out - GVs from Field1 will strive to make it to , GVs from Field2 will strive to make it to .
The GVs from Field1 prove to be superior. They make the push to . In some way, either by a 'capture and hold the flag' type of system, or 'land M3s at designated area to capture a spawn point' system, GVs from Field1 make the push and capture spawnpoint4.
Now, GVs from Field1 and Field2 will spawn at ... and so on.
The good thing about this system is;
1. While the air-battle is raging on above the skies between Field1 and Field2, the tanks can fight their own ground battle without intrusion. Nobody wants to be at low altitude in a bomber or a tankbuster, smack in the middle of enemy Field1 and Field2.
2. If someone wants to be a party pooper and ups from Field1 or Field2 with a tankbuster or a bomber, they have to make 15 miles to the middle of two fields. If they fail, they can't instantly reup from the field and dump more bombs within minutes. Even if they are successful, they have to fly for a certain time to rtb, to reup with more ordnance.
3. Therefore, without having to seggrate the GVs into their own sanctuary, and without having to worry about GV massacres near enemy field, or enemy M3s continuously spawning like mad 5 miles away from town.. the GVs can play a part in the 'capture-territories' plot. Free from enemy air attacks - at least, upto a point where GVs from Field1 or Field2 to makes it to the enemy field. It is only then, they will have to face considerable enemy resistance in the form of tank busters.
This is one of the better ideas I've came up with in the past.
ps) for an added bonus, imagine that there is a road system connecting those spawn points, and one or two towns in the way... and in order for GVs from one field to push to the next spawn point, they have to make it past the town to the next spawn, and hold it for the required condition.... and enemy tanks.. are waiting.. in the town.
This town is not a part of the capture mechanic. It's just a town, along the byway, of all the network of spawn points....
ps2) A similar idea currently existing in the game, is the maps with the 'chain of VHs' . However, VHs take a lot of time to capture, not to mention it can be difficult to place 5~6 VHs between fields 30 miles apart. The network of spawn points, have to be easy to capture or retake, so the tide of the GV battles can always fluctuate depending on how many are participating in it.
-
Okay, going back to the initial point: more tank town areas:
Why? The ONLY reason tanks get kills in AH is because they camp. Over the years I've tried to enjoy GVs many many many many times, but I can't. I can't enjoy it. IT'S STUPID!
You either have to sit and wait for 5 hours for anybody to land directly in front of your hiding spot, or the second you move out somebody who's been hiding for 5 hours themselves kill you instantly.
Until they change the hide-and-be-stupid (I mean "seek") mode of tank warfare I don't think we need to cater to it.
When you get pitched battles with front lines moving toward each other and head-on attacks (figuratively speaking) there's no reason for tanks in AH.
As for GVs and the "Tiger Problem" -- I've suggested removing the tiger altogether. This would solve the problem and pave the way for a dozen lighter tanks that will NEVER see use if the Tiger is in play. However, too many folks love their Tigers to accept that suggestion :)
-
naaa keep the tiger, just get a tank that is fast, thin armour, but has a gun that is powerful enough to destroy a tiger. That will solve the tiger problem.
-
The good thing about tank towns is that it gives you someplace where you're virtually assured of finding an enemy gv.
With tanks so slow, and not appearing on radar, it's the only real place your guaranteed to find a ground fight.
That said, I love tanks when they have a role in capturing bases. I think there is nothing more fun that tanks slugging it out on the ground, planes fighting overhead and bombs whizzing all around. That, to me, is when AH is really, really amazing.
-
i think the m26 pershing should be added. it was used in battle of the bulge in late '44 till the end of the war
-
I think that Kweassa has the makings of a good idea. He is making the GV part of the game more interesting by solving several things at once. The biggest is the spawn camper part of the game, which often allows one or two people to totally stop an attack, and build up rediculous scores for little or no effort, and less skill. It also makes the plane less prominent in the ground attack battle until nearer a base.
K's idea can be modified after some use, but the basic idea me thinks is pretty well thought out. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve any phase of the game for those who enjoy that part of the game.
-
loads of issues here...........
I agree that some map work has to be done to enhance ground battles and that the spawn system is fundamental to that................
I have some sympathy with kweassas multi spawn system...............
I would have preffered a spawn road.............it has infinate (or many) points and the player just clicks the point on the road he wishes to spawn to.
He is inhibited from spawning to a point past that used by an enemy tank that is still in play or within the ground warning range of the enemy field.
But he can spawn to any point between that point and his origin field.
The distance the player "jumps" along the spawn road depletes his fuel accordingly.
I do not think that any enemy on the ground should have an icon........................ visible from anything.
Further it should be possible to dig into fixed positions and add camo netting. This could also be used during spawn to limit the effectiveness of spawn campers. Ie the player jumps to a point where he is dug in and camoflaged. To dig out and remove the netting takes time and for a fixed period the player is both visible and imobile (or he loses the ability to dig in again a 2nd time by leaving his stuff behind)
-
My Wish is:
Remove all GVS, this is a Flying Sim
:D :D
Now I will run and hide
-
Originally posted by Casper1
Now I will run and hide
Dont come out till we tell you its safe:aok
-
hmmmm..... i would like to see the M24 though i dont think it would stand up to a Tiger
-
Krusty:
"Why? The ONLY reason tanks get kills in AH is because they camp. Over the years I've tried to enjoy GVs many many many many times, but I can't. I can't enjoy it. IT'S STUPID!
You either have to sit and wait for 5 hours for anybody to land directly in front of your hiding spot, or the second you move out somebody who's been hiding for 5 hours themselves kill you instantly"
I guess I could agree, but it's the same way I feel about fighters. Fly all the way over to a field only to be cherry picked by some guy diving down from the stratosphere who's been waiting for 5 hours.
Oh well
-
i would like to adress the issue of the T-34/76 having the same armor as the sherman. this is true if you only look at the thickness. however, the heavily sloped armor of the T-34 series makes them much harder to kill.
the Hetzer would be great as a tiny little annoyance. i seen one up close when i was about 12 and even then i thought it was tiny.
(http://www.2ndpanzerdivision.com/hetzer.jpg)
-
WOW that is little. Hope they had enough room to at least stretch their legs. I would hate it if i couldnt. The Hetzer would be cool to have in AH. A tank with no turrent and u have to move your tank into the direction of the enemy. This would be lots of fun and challaging.
-
How about a sherman firefly ? would take care of those pesky little Tigers with that big 17 pounder gun, It was in service in numbers so no need to have a high perk tag on it either, it's standard round would penetrate a tigers frontal armour at over a thousand meters......
So BREAK OUT THE FIREFLY LOL:aok
-
Heck yes!
-
KEEEEEEEEEEEEENG TIGAAAAAAAAAR!!!
RAWWr!!1!
(http://www.oldhickory30th.com/Arno%20Lasoe%20King%20Tiger%20La%20Gleize%203.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Big G
How about a sherman firefly ? would take care of those pesky little Tigers with that big 17 pounder gun, It was in service in numbers so no need to have a high perk tag on it either, it's standard round would penetrate a tigers frontal armour at over a thousand meters......
So BREAK OUT THE FIREFLY LOL:aok
or better yet: an unperked M36 "Jackson" tank destroyer. bout 2 inches of armor make it barely impervious to heavy machinegun fire. the M36 had a 90mm gun HOOYAH!!! and it was faster than the sherman firefly.
actually, i would like to see several tank destroyers, including the soviet SU-76
(http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/su76mcw_10.jpg)
or a lightly perked SU-85
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/su85cw_16.jpg)
-
Responding to Smidsy -- I thought I made clear that I did not think the equal thickness of the armor meant in game terms that the two tanks (T-34/76 vs. the theoretical Sherman) would be equally the same to kill. The slope of the armor in the T-34 would increase the chance of a richochet - I do not claim to know how the game is modeled in that respect, I just figured it was a probability equation of some kind. Probability of richochet firing on a T-34 is significantly greater than when firing on a sherman from anywhere but the hull front. Not to mention that the lower profile of the T-34 make it harder to hit in the first place, would mean that the T-34 would still be more "survivable" than the Sherman.
I have an article from the July/August 2005 issue of WW2 Magazine that summarizes a report done by American intelligence. The Americans wanted an honest comparison of US equipment and doctrine vs Russian. In September 1944, they interviewed POWs that had fought on the Russian front prior to facing the Americans in France. The report stated: "American tanks stand up better under anti-tank fire than the Russian. . . Firepower, good visibility, and good armor are also qualities of our tanks."
They did praise the T-34 for being low-built, fast, and "they always have plenty of them." I personally take that to mean harder to hit and numerically superior.
Believe me, I am not trying to say the T-34 was a bad tank. I AM saying that it was not the "Uber-tank" it so often is made out to be, even after the T-34/85 was introduced. Also by contrast to its reputation, I am saying the Sherman was a good tank, not the pathetic paper-tiger it is often made out to be.
I had to laugh at a program they ran on the Military channel ranking the top tanks of all time. They used as their criteria Armor, Firepower, Mobility, Production value, and Fear Factor. The Sherman was #10 having received good marks only for mobility and production. #1 was the T-34, which they gave top marks for almost everything. They actually said something to the effect that the "high velocity" 76mm gun could knock out the heaviest German tanks at range. At that point I about fell out of my chair, but I think it is indicative of how the reputation of the T-34 tends to get way overblown.
By 1944 the Germans were crushing formations of T-34s with relative ease -- when they had armor available. Not surprisingly, then, they were also crushing the Shermans. I contend the reputation of the T-34 was built up by its early successes in late 41 and 42 before German armor "caught up". The Sherman's reputation was set in 1944 when facing already up-gunned German tanks. IMO, both were good tanks, but neither deserves their reputation, one high and one low.
Big G's suggestion of a Sherman Firefly is definitely a good one (a variant I had forgotten about). It would also help Klum25th's request for a Brit tank (still think the Lee / Grant would be too hard to model without more than one gunner) as the Firefly was purely a British modification. If I am not mistaken, part of the effectiveness of the 17 pounder was that it used a Sabot round, correct? One of the first (if not THE first) development of what is now standard for modern armor forces.
EZDuzit says the Pershing served in the bulge -- I don't think this is correct. I pulled the following from a website "patton-mania" which talks about the Pershing as a pre-genetor to the "Patton" tank series:
"It took until December of that year for the first tanks to be issued to troops in the European Theater of Operation (ETO). The first twenty by then T26E3 tanks, reached Europe in January 1945, and first saw combat in February. Of the 200 tanks issued to units, only twenty actually saw action. A few T26E3 tanks were issued to Okinawa in the Pacific Theater, but reaching there in July of 1945, none saw combat before the war ended." They did, however, see plenty of combat in Korea kicking the tar out of the North Korean T-34s.
I'll shut up now and let someone else post for a change.
-
"for a change."
There, I posted it... now what?
:lol
-
I think the 17 pounder did use a sabot round, I think it was THE fist gun to do so.
I know the 17 pounder was one of the best Anti-tank guns of the war.
-
Originally posted by E25280
"American tanks stand up better under anti-tank fire than the Russian. . . Firepower, good visibility, and good armor are also qualities of our tanks."
You killing me.
If turret stuck at 11 o clock(took a hit or something else happened),driver could not get out,the door was right under the gun barrel.
I believe there was an incident when single panzer knocked out 8 British Shermans.
good tanks there were,indeed
-
Originally posted by E25280
By 1944 the Germans were crushing formations of T-34s with relative ease -- when they had armor available. Not surprisingly, then, they were also crushing the Shermans. I contend the reputation of the T-34 was built up by its early successes in late 41 and 42 before German armor "caught up". The Sherman's reputation was set in 1944 when facing already up-gunned German tanks. IMO, both were good tanks, but neither deserves their reputation, one high and one low.
I agree, which is why I still maintain that the T-34/85 should have been the one added to AH, not the inadequate T-34/76. The T-34/85 would hardly be a wonder weapon, it would just be solidly competitive with the Panzer IV H and able to face the Tiger I from a position of disadvantage, but with the hope of victory.
-
its ONLY the worlds largest tank ever.....
THE MAUS!!!!
(http://www.strange-mecha.com/german/army/maus.JPG)
(http://www.wehrmacht.nl/German%20superheavy%20tank%20-%20'Maus'.jpg)
-
Originally posted by KgB
You killing me.
If turret stuck at 11 o clock(took a hit or something else happened),driver could not get out,the door was right under the gun barrel.
I believe there was an incident when single panzer knocked out 8 British Shermans.
good tanks there were,indeed
Given the lack of head-to-head experience of US vs Russian tanks pre-Korea, it seems logical and valid to me to use the impressions of the enemy that faced both to compare relative strengths and weaknesses.
I think the whole report, rather than an article written about the report, would probably shed additional light. Unfortunately, the article only refers to it as the 1st Division G-2 report. (For anyone who may not know, G-2 is just the intelligence section). The only other clue is that it says the compiled report was distributed to subordinate commands on October 21, 1944. I personally lack the patience to try to dig up the report through an internet search, and so will just stick with what the article says.
As for the 8 tank kills by a single panzer: There were plenty of instances where single German tanks knocked out a large number of Shermans. There are just as many instances of German tanks destroying slews of Russian T-34s. There is also an instance during the seige at Bastonge where 2 M-10s and a battery of pak-75 howitzers knocked out 14 German MkIV tanks. None of these really speak to the relative strengths of the tanks themselves, only that it is possible to run up a large number of kills if the situation is correct.
Turret sticking at 11o'clock -- I suppose this would stop the driver from bailing from his top hatch. He also had full access to the rest of the crew compartment and all the other hatches as a result. Not sure what this has to do with the overall quality of the tank, but I guess it would concern me if I was the driver.
So in the absence of contradictory evidence, I will stand by my original assessment. Sorry if it made you roll your eyes, kgb, it's just the way I see it. Feel free to disagree.
Best Regards,
-
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
its ONLY the worlds largest tank ever.....
THE MAUS!!!!
(http://www.strange-mecha.com/german/army/maus.JPG)
(http://www.wehrmacht.nl/German%20superheavy%20tank%20-%20'Maus'.jpg)
o
m
g :O
-
Originally posted by E25280
So in the absence of contradictory evidence, I will stand by my original assessment. Sorry if it made you roll your eyes, kgb, it's just the way I see it. Feel free to disagree.
Best Regards,
Oh there is plenty of contradictory evidence:)
Did Germans use Shermans?
I know they used t34's
What wast the nick name of Sherman,i thunk Germans called them "Firecracker" or something,single hit was enough to set it on fire
-
Did Germans use Shermans?
After Operation Goodwood, the Germans captured enough Shermans to equip an entire company (and did).
The West Front was not nearly as fluid as the East Front, so the opportunity to capture US armor was less than the opportunity on the East front.
I wouldn't judge much from the fact the Germans used the armor after capturing it. The Germans used captured French tanks as well. By late '44 they were desperate for any servicable armor they could lay their hands on and would probably have used anything they could find ammunition and fuel for.
I agree, the Sherman did have a reputation for catching fire. It used gasoline as a fuel, which caused fires much more readily than German or Russian tanks which were usually diesels. By 1944, a single hit from a German panzer could also take out a T-34, the absence of fire notwithstanding. If that is your primary definition of what makes a good tank or a bad tank, then I would agree with you. It isn't my primary consideration. (I think the Sherman by late 44 had undergone several modifications that delayed the onset of a fire, thus giving the crew time to bail -- exactly what escapes me at the moment. I will have to research it and post on it later.)